Sex crimes are evil, whether by man or woman

Let's be clear - what Vanessa George, the 39-year-old nursery worker arrested last week, is alleged to have done to children entrusted to her care at the Little Ted's day nursery in Plymouth, Devon, is horrific. In court, she was charged with sexual assault by penetration, sexual assault by touching and other charges relating to making and distributing indecent images of children.

Understandable, then, that some of the Plymouth parents were so upset, spitting at George in the dock, pelting the police van with bottles and flour. However, what about the rest of us? Could it be that while we are disgusted by the allegations, we are also instinctively overreacting to the fact that the suspect was a woman? While George is due back in court in September, in the public forum, are we already engaged in the age-old practice of trial by gender?

It seems to me that child-abuse cases such as these act as Rorschach tests on the public's primal consciousness. Why else are female suspects routinely tried twice - first officially in court for the crimes, then, unofficially, emotionally, culturally - for the fact that they are women, and therefore their actions are deemed somehow more disgusting, unnatural and unforgivable.

Whether or not she is found guilty, this is where George seems to have been positioned thus far. The very fact that a woman has been charged seems to have somehow framed the crimes in the public eye as intrinsically "more" horrific, when surely this is not the case. Would those parents have been any less anguished if the alleged violator of their children had turned out to be male ("Phew, it was only a man")? Of course not.

With those parents in Plymouth, with any parents, it is what may have happened to their children, not the sex of the perpetrator, that counts. Similarly, a crime is defined as an act prohibited by law and is inherently genderless. Why then, all week, have we witnessed what amounts to a witch-burning all over the media and the internet? How has the fact that George is a woman become the stuff of headlines rather than an afterthought?

Some may say that because of George's job, gender is an issue. Certainly, it's arguable that it is easier to work in a nursery as a female; and that if someone did exploit their gender in this way, they cannot then complain if that gender is used against them. Another argument is that the overheated public reaction may be a perverse compliment to females - in that it is our very rarity that makes it a talking point. Well, um thanks, though, sadly, "rare" does not mean "never".

In America right now, Melissa Huckaby stands accused of raping "with an object" and killing eight-year-old Sandra Cantu, though in this instance internet debate appears to favour, without any proof, the idea that Huckaby was a mere accomplice to a man. Back in Britain, while we can accept the idea of women acting alone, we also seem to want to punish them more.

How can this be right? Certainly it does not seem helpful to the Plymouth children or their parents to have the arrest of Vanessa George framed in such gender-based terms. "How could she?" "A woman." "A mother." "Bitch." It's as if the very fact of a woman's gender makes her extra-strength, turbo-powered evil.

In that event, everyone loses. What should rightly be compassion for the victims mutates into senseless rage at the ultimate female betrayal. Moreover, women like George are condemned by a kangaroo court of public emotion before they even step into the courtroom, and, in the event of being found guilty, judged to be "worse" than a man, when the crime is exactly the same.

Maybe it is time for us all to accept some fundamental truths: that while statistics tell their own story, when a person is very greedy or very sick, gender becomes irrelevant; that there are no exclusively "male" or "female" crimes. Most crucially, that women who commit sex crimes against children are no better, but also, no worse than their male counterparts. Just a lot less numerous.

Treat these 'new' drugs revelations with snorts of derision

A new public health study has announced that women, as many as one in 15 of the under-25s, are abusing cocaine as much as men for the first time and that this is a result of ladette culture. Furthermore, there is now a practice called cutting, where pure cocaine is bulked up with other substances, but coke users don't mind the weaker stuff because it enables them to drink longer.

What a fascinating and illuminating study - was it conducted in 1987? And how much did it cost? If they'd bought me a coffee and a muffin in Starbucks, I could have told them all this and more.

First, cocaine has never been a male drug as such, so it's probably not that women are suddenly using it, rather that they are admitting to it. Second, it really is getting maddeningly tired and lame to keep blaming ladette culture for any situation involving two or more females not being entirely sober.

As for the sinister new practice of cutting, that's as old as drugs themselves. For generations now, over-talkative revellers have been waffling and frugging away, blissfully unaware that their "highs"' mainly comprise chalk dust and talcum powder. How do I know this? When I was young and worth offering free drugs to, some "Bad People" told me, right before, in grand journalistic tradition, "I made my excuses and left". (Or was it to buy some crack?)

More seriously, it's quite chilling how naive and dated these "findings" are. Little wonder that the drugs war is forever lost.

Show Madonna some mercy. She's showing us the way on Africa

It seems that, after the setback in April, Madonna's adoption of three-year-old Malawian girl, Mercy James, has finally been approved. So perhaps it's a good time for us all to stop carping about Ciccone the child-snatcher. Admittedly, I had a snicker when I first heard of Madonna's quest to adopt first David and now Mercy. "Oh love the new look, Madge, très jolie ... or should that be Angelina Jolie."

The snicker turned into a guffaw when I saw the Madonna-approved shots of herself cuddling little Mercy, her strangely smooth face beaming beatifically at the cameras, like Baby Jane after an ironing.

However, I've come to think that Madonna has behaved rather honourably. Not only has she kept her promises to Malawi, setting up a charity to help Aids orphans, but she refused to give up on either David or Mercy, when she could have easily flounced off to other countries where she may have had an easier ride.

On the other hand, there were objections to the adoptions, not least from Mercy's biological father, whose professions of love and devotion for his daughter were perhaps slightly compromised by his having previously run off before she was born, only to reappear three years later when the wealthy, famous lady took an interest. Nice one, Dad.

As for the oft-trumpeted "wider issues" - did it ever really matter that Madonna was a rich, white woman and Malawi was a poor, black country? If this were to become a deal-breaker, then the entire international adoption process would collapse overnight, for everyone, not just celebrities. It's not as if we are suddenly going to get poor, African families trying to adopt rich, white babies from the UK to redress the balance. Right now, this is the order of things - deal with it.

To my mind, Madonna has done mostly good, not least publicising Malawi, which previously was largely ignored. Indeed, while it seems fashionable right now to tell us to back off and stop patronising Africa, the real answer is surely more western intervention, not less - not regarding adoption per se, but certainly in terms of awareness, involvement and empathy.

Perhaps we should think about that next time we start lazily griping about A-list child-snatching.

Swine flu hits home

I was wondering what it would take to get people fully engaged about swine flu. Even the World Health Organisation announcement that it was the first pandemic in 40 years didn't seem to do it. But now I read that a projected surge in flu cases could result in thousands of schools closing for weeks on end. Schools closed. Kids home. Indefinitely. Finally, swine flu gets parents' attention.